“Under a Pennsylvania court ruling, the state cannot engage in asset forfeiture without an authorizing statute. About time.” My piece this week at Cato.
“Under a Pennsylvania court ruling, the state cannot engage in asset forfeiture without an authorizing statute. About time.” My piece this week at Cato.
4 Comments
That’s going to put a dent in Philadelphia’s budget.
That is, Pennsylvania does not have, nor has it ever had , common law asset forfeiture.
Which creates some interesting issues of retroactivity..
On a related point– is there a link with a comprehensive discussion of which forfeiture and pre-trial seizures are good, and which ones are not?
Examples:
If a financial manager is credibly charged with embezzling $2 million from a widow, presumably the money should be frozen for restitution, rather than dissipated on sky-is-the-limit legal defense costs for the embezzler. But how is this justified if the embezzler has not been formally convicted yet? Is there a preliminary hearing where the credibility of the charge is assessed, even if not “beyond a reasonable doubt”?
Should there be a difference where
(2a) the money in question is proceeds of crime,
(2b) whether there is reasonable dispute whether the activity in question really is a crime? (Something that a top quality defence lawyer could argue persuasively)
What are the relative merits of freezing or forfeiting property for
(3a) restitution
(3b) forfeiture of ill-gotten gains
(3c) anticipated fines and penalties (against honestly acquired property)
These are just samples of the subjects I would look for in a good essay.
(2a) how can money in the possession of the defendant be proceeds of a crime if you haven’t convicted the defendant yet.
(3a) int what universe is it just to take money for restitution from an innocent party.
(3b) How do you know that they are ill-gotten gains without a conviction/judgement on the merits.